You are here
EC Jurisdiction Over Agency Procurement and Contractors
Monday, May 5th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
How much jurisdiction need a government ethics program have over
procurement matters when there is a procurement program dealing with
them? This question, common to all cities and counties, is being
asked in Honolulu, with respect to the Honolulu
Authority for Rapid Transportation (HART), which will be
soon awarding about a billion dollars in contracts.
According to an article Friday in Honolulu Civil Beat, Honolulu's ethics commission "is worried that there isn't enough government oversight to ensure that private companies aren't given sweetheart deals." According to the EC, in a letter to the mayor and council, there has been an increasing number of complaints about contractors relating to “unauthorized access to confidential city information, nepotism, and use of taxpayer dollars for political purposes." The problem is exacerbated by the fact that HART is an independent authority, over which the EC does not clearly have jurisdiction, even though the authority pays its contractors with city taxpayer funds.
For example, Civil Beat wrote an article a few months ago alleging that HART's deputy executive director had recently been a vice president of a company that won a $46.1 million engineering contract. It was not clear what role that individual played in the award process (HART says he had nothing to do with it), but he might have had access to confidential information that could have helped his employer. But the EC was not able to investigate. This left HART self-enforcing the rules.
Not only the EC is concerned. An auditor's report said that "consultants have significant influence over rail project operations and how taxpayer dollars are spent, but have minimal accountability for their actions and decisions."
A professor who specializes in procurement law told Civil Beat that EC jurisdiction over HART contractors would be duplication, because state procurement laws already apply, and companies that violate these laws can receive negative performance ratings or be temporarily prohibited from receiving future government contracts.
But procurement laws do not cover all the same areas as EC laws, enforcement is probably more complex and infrequent, and state authorities are not as interested in the misuse of city funds and information as a city EC is.
For example, according to the article, a public relations consultant paid more than half a million dollars by HART repeatedly attacked a mayoral candidate who opposed the rail project. In 2012, the new agency head eliminated his contract, but otherwise this sort of conduct might have continued, because no one but the agency itself, in whose interest the consultant was acting, had authority over the consultant.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
According to an article Friday in Honolulu Civil Beat, Honolulu's ethics commission "is worried that there isn't enough government oversight to ensure that private companies aren't given sweetheart deals." According to the EC, in a letter to the mayor and council, there has been an increasing number of complaints about contractors relating to “unauthorized access to confidential city information, nepotism, and use of taxpayer dollars for political purposes." The problem is exacerbated by the fact that HART is an independent authority, over which the EC does not clearly have jurisdiction, even though the authority pays its contractors with city taxpayer funds.
For example, Civil Beat wrote an article a few months ago alleging that HART's deputy executive director had recently been a vice president of a company that won a $46.1 million engineering contract. It was not clear what role that individual played in the award process (HART says he had nothing to do with it), but he might have had access to confidential information that could have helped his employer. But the EC was not able to investigate. This left HART self-enforcing the rules.
Not only the EC is concerned. An auditor's report said that "consultants have significant influence over rail project operations and how taxpayer dollars are spent, but have minimal accountability for their actions and decisions."
A professor who specializes in procurement law told Civil Beat that EC jurisdiction over HART contractors would be duplication, because state procurement laws already apply, and companies that violate these laws can receive negative performance ratings or be temporarily prohibited from receiving future government contracts.
But procurement laws do not cover all the same areas as EC laws, enforcement is probably more complex and infrequent, and state authorities are not as interested in the misuse of city funds and information as a city EC is.
For example, according to the article, a public relations consultant paid more than half a million dollars by HART repeatedly attacked a mayoral candidate who opposed the rail project. In 2012, the new agency head eliminated his contract, but otherwise this sort of conduct might have continued, because no one but the agency itself, in whose interest the consultant was acting, had authority over the consultant.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
